Appeal No. 2006-3044 Page 11
Application No. 10/285,939
Groups B, C, D, E, and F
We note that all remaining Groups B through F (as argued separately
by appellants) likewise turn upon the scope of the claim language that
recites: “a plurality buffer elements each being uniquely assigned to one of
said command tags” [see independent claims 1, 19, 20 and 21]. Because
we have fully addressed this point of argument supra, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of all claims in Groups B through F for the same
reasons argued by the examiner in the answer and discussed above.
Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 19, 20, 21, 22,
25-27 and 29-38 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Harriman. We
will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 8, 23, 24 and 28 as
being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Harriman, and further in view of
HTTC.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejections of all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-38 is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007